15 Replies to “I, Napoleon”

  2. As with all psycho-leftists … I suspect Robespierre was a little light in the loafers.

    1. To put it mildly. Any political movement that would welcome the Marquis de Sade as a comrade has revealed its real goals.

      I have said on a number of occasions: if you really want to know what leftism was about from the very beginning—and you have the stomach—go read as much as you can bear of Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom.

      If the revolutionaries tell you that they want to rape, torture and murder children for the sheer dirty thrill of it—and destroy anything, including belief in a loving God, that stands in the way of that—believe them.

      (And Sade was by all accounts not even the most zealous or murderous revolutionary in practice, expecting his long-suffering in-laws to be grateful that he helped spare them the guillotine.)

  3. messianic.
    emphasis on MESS
    feel free to do a search on what became of the messianic teacher.
    hint: likewise nick ‘ciao’secu of romania

  4. Some aspects of this sort of language-bending are more enforceable than others – a noun like fireman can become firefighter, an adjective like gay can completely change its meaning. Terms like Negro and Eskimo do give way to newer ones.

    But pronouns are a different kettle of fish; trying to enforce “boutique” third-person pronoun use is linguistically counter-intuitive because it runs entirely opposite to the purpose of the pronoun as a more general substitute for a more specific noun or expression.

    Even those who tout this pronoun nonsense are doomed to failure; no language speaker can maintain an inexhaustible list of individually-specific personal pronouns in their vocabulary.

  5. “The continuous disasters of man’s history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.” ~ Arthur Koestler

  6. Pronouns and nouns. The rudest and crudest is the liberal progressive’s new language abomination that replaces woman with menstruator. Nope, nothing degrading about referring to 50% of the population by a bodily function. And, it’s not going over well, at all. Women are livid about the dehumanizing language.

    It seems like the only people who will be legally allowed to be called a woman are XY transwomen.

      1. Toxic semenators, of course. They’ve labelled the entire male population toxic. Another misuse and abuse of language.

  7. Esperanto, the artificial language proposed as the official language of the League of Nations (an initiative mercifully vetoed by the French), and the language spoken at home by the young George Soros, had no grammatical gender.

    The social engineers have been trying to make the differences between the sexes disappear from human language for a long time.

  8. Immediately upon starting to read the excerpt, I was struck by a sense of “deja vu” (pardon the contextual pun and lack of proper French grammar, both here and below).

    Where we’ve seen all this before, of course, at least in Canada, but certainly at least in some aspects across the entire English-speaking world, was in the introduction of the Metric System (the so-called “Systeme Internationale”, which had its origins in 19th Century France — a time and place still trying to internalize and reconcile the experience of…wait for it…the French Revolution! Who knew?):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

    And, of course, the Metric System was introduced here by the Trudeau, Sr. government, concurrent with the Official Languages Act, the new national flag, and other measures to make Canada seem “less British” than it was and is, including efforts to remake the constitutional arrangements and to mollify sentiments within Quebec in the context of the “Quiet Revolution” and, more generally, in the context of the immediate aftermath of the transmogrification of the British Empire.

    Now, this is not to say that the changeover wasn’t global, but it certainly seemed to me growing up at the time to be opportunistically ideological, suspect as to motive and not really of any practical value. I well remember one of the key arguments for the change at the time: “Well, we have to keep up with the times to ensure that we have a modern economy that can compete in the new world economic order.” Yeah, right, as if 80%+ of Canada’s international trade is not and was not with the United States (it’s become a bit more so, not less so, with North American trade agreements and, actually, the relative decline of Britain as a trading partner): the U.S.A. has never adopted Metric for economic purposes, and its system of fluid measurement has always been different from our own. And, of course, because of its lack of practical importance, the adoption of Metric has in many ways been defeated over time, and hopefully will be more defeated as the eclipse of the E.U. further develops.

    So, yes: Ms. Noonan certainly makes an excellent point, but one which is not necessarily complete because of the American non-experience of Metrification. I think there’ve been at least three waves of this thing in my lifetime wrought
    with havoc by the Canadian chapter of the Leftist Global Busybody Society (the L.G.B.S.?; how appropriate in the context of this subject!): the wave of changes described above, the introduction of P.C. thought generally in the late 80s and early 90s, and now with the pronoun debacle.

    They’re persistent — I’ll give them take much.

  9. When is a pervert not a pervert? When is a pronoun not a pronoun? I call them as I see them.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation